I’ve searched but cannot find any information on this. Simply curious. From outside the USA we get the impression you are all connected with ultra fast broadband and smart phones in every pocket.
This says 1/3 of americans own smart phones in aug 2011.
This says there are
81,744,000 broadbrand subscriptions in the U.s
The average U.s household according to a quick google is 2.6
81744000 * 2.6 = 212534400 internet users.
population of u.s according to google is 308745538
thus 68.8% of the U.s has broadband.
Moral: google rocks.
The OECD tracks broadband statistics from many countries. As of 2010, about 68% of U.S. households had broadband access; I believe this includes both wired and wireless broadband.
The main divide in the U.S. is between urban and rural areas. Broadband is pretty common & relatively cheap in the urban areas in the U.S. The USA’s large geographic size, however, makes the cost of running broadband-capable cable to every last household a trickier proposition than it would be in, say, Belgium.
Oh, and of course, just because a household doesn’t have broadband doesn’t mean that it does have dialup. Some poorer households would have no home connection at all; the best we can say from the above is that the percentage of households with a dialup connection would be no greater than 32%.
Ultra fast? 30 MBPS is the fastest available in my area. My service is 15 MBPS.
I have a smartphone and get about 5 MBPS over my cellular network. I got this phone a little over a year ago because I was gonna cancel my DSL broadband and just tether my phone to my laptop when at home. 5MBPS would have been fine for my needs and I was gonna save some money getting rid of DSL.
But then my cell co. capped data at 5GB per month even though I pay $30.00 per month for “unlimited”. So now i’ve got an unlimited data contract that uses only a few hundred MB per month because at home the smartphone is connected through my wireless DSL connection. :rolleyes: I’m stuck paying 30.00 per month to occasionally use Maps or look something up on Google when away from home. It’s useful occasionally but not $30.00 per month useful.
Between the 2, I pay about $65.00 per month. I’ve read that in places like Hong Kong or Singapore, they have 100MBPS service for the equivalent of $25-$30 per month. Must be nice.
The Pew Research Center’s “Internet and American Life” project gives a similar number – they say that 66% of American adults had broadband Internet access at home, as of May, 2010.
Agreed. We’ve had several threads here on the SDMB in recent weeks about high-speed options in rural areas.
This is true. American internet is frankly not very well developed. I believe the Japanese have some of the best internet available with most of the country getting 100+ mbits.
Heck, their cell reception is stellar too. I had reception on the TOP of Mt. Fuji back in 2008.
I know a number of people who have no connection at home. In an urban area it’s not hard to find a cafe or something with free wireless.
Also, in an apartment or condo complex, it’s still common to find an open connection from a neighbor. People using that as their internet service would obviously not be included in the statistics.
I’d like to have 100+ MBPS but I can’t say i’ve had any issues with my 15MBPS. Netflix/Hulu etc on my ROKU streams just fine over my connection even if i’m doing something on the computer at the same time.
Does the dial up number include if you have a combined service.
For instance, both Comcast cable and AT&T DSL include dial up numbers in case your broadband goes out.
So is the dial up included in that as well, is such alternative services are offered? Or is it solely for dial up?
I also think that Asian countries tend to have equal upload and download rates? Is this so?
What and to whom did you say at what I would think is this supreme moment?
“Top of the world Mom!”
“I can see your house from here!”
“You’ll never guess where I’m calling from…”
Broadband is getting better (and cheaper) in the US. I live in a suburb of Cincinnati in Indiana with Comcast as my ISP and I pay a combined $185 a month for my unlimited landline, HD/DVR cable boxes, every imaginable HD and sports tier along with HBO and Starz, as well as my 25Mb down/3Mb up internet and I get results like these with regularity (I just ran this test and oddly enough, I always get better results from a server in Indianapolis, which is much farther away than the one in Cincinnati…and ping is usually 30-35Ms, which is fairly off the chain): http://www.speedtest.net/result/1786101975.png
ETA: I think it helps that I am the only Comcast subscriber on my side of the street…everyone else has satellite, which I could not get due to the way my house sits on a downhill slope and the height of the trees behind it blocking the signal)
From what I have heard, South Kora actually has the best broadband services.
Anyway, having moved to the U.K. last year, I now get more reliable quality broadband (i.e., I usually get something very close to my rated speed in reality) than I used to get (via cable) in suburban southern California. I understand the service in much of western Europe is even better than that in the U.K.
It is sad that America, that actually did invent the Internet (thanks to Al Gore - yes really!), now seems to be falling behind in providing it for its citizens.
Isn’t the issue, much like light rail, a matter of distance and cost? Many of these Asian nations that have unbelievable internet speeds are largely urban due to a huge person per square mile ratio. America outside of its urban centers is very spread out. It would cost a LOT for a company to run fiber optic out to every Farmer John in states like Nebraska in the middle of nowhere.
Maybe in rural areas that is the issue, but, like I say, I get better cable broadband in suburban Britain (knock on wood) than I got in the suburban USA, just outside Los Angeles.
The rated speed I am paying for is the same, but her I pretty much get that speed most of the time, whereas I was lucky to get much more than half of what I was paying for most of the time in California (and I got a lot more outages there too).
Really? Try talking to Softbank mobile users.
In central Tokyo, I often lose my mobile connection for a few minutes while riding the trains between the two busiest stations in the world, Shinjuku Station and Ikebukuro Station.
I suppose that’s partly the issue. But you would still expect places like New York City to be comparable to Hong Kong or Singapore, and it’s not.
Not really. Mt Fuji is so built up you can buy candy bars and cup o noodles along the way. Granny’s regularly make it to the top. (during the safe season, it’s a killer mountain during the winter). I’m glad I did it though.
There’s even a Ramen shop and a post office (totally cool, sent a few postcards) on top.
I called my friend who didn’t make it to the top of the mountain to let him know we were coming down.
Are there underground tunnels along that route? That’s not a fair comparison if there are.
Also, come on, trains coming and going from Shinjuku are packed like sardines. it’s unfair to expect any reasonable amount of towers to handle like 5,000+ simultaneous connections.
Well said, we have the same problem in New Zealand. There is lots of complaining in the cities that broadband isn’t fast enough, low caps etc, completely ignoring that many rural people here still only have dial-up. Satellite internet is available but at a cost. 3G wireless is reasonably available but costly too. For example I have a t-stick for which I can buy 2GB at $50 lasting one month. Use it or lose it. Or I can tether my cellphone at a similar cost.
Our government is putting money into fibre optic cables to try and connect most of the nation. The Australian (geographically huge) government is spending billions doing the same.
Doesn’t satellite internet suck balls compared to cable (or even DSL)? Will that ever change? Or is a hardwired connection always going to be better?